Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 301 (441267)
12-16-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
12-16-2007 10:19 PM


Re: E = [philosophical viewpoint]2
Atheism needs science to validate itself. Science does not need atheism to validate itself. Is that more clear?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2007 10:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2007 10:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 301 (441271)
12-16-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-16-2007 10:37 PM


Re: E = [philosophical viewpoint]2
Is that more clear?
I guess, and I can't say that's not true, but I don't really see the relevance to what I was talking about.
Probably atheism isn't on-topic here. It originally started with a book recommendation, after all. Maybe we should leave it at that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-16-2007 10:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 301 (441292)
12-17-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
12-16-2007 10:12 PM


Dawkins is a scientist, and more than any other scientist, his views and arguments are misrepresented.
Yeah, but its his nonscientific ones, not his scientific ones, right?
In the real world, the evidence science delivers confirms atheism. Hence, atheism is based on science.
There are plenty of atheists that have no knowledge of science, nor use that as the basis of their disbelief. Hence atheism is not based on science.
What is true is that science has helped atheists by pulling the teeth out of some common theistic arguments. So science has certainly been a benefit to atheism. No question. But one could live a very full atheistic life with no recourse to science.
The evidence of science naturally leads to atheism.
There are plenty of scientists that are theists so your claim is sort of dubious. Indeed many great scientists viewed their work as proving a divine creator.
The evidence of science has so far pried away some specific tenets pf theistic dogma. And it has not required gods for explanations. That is something which atheists can enjoy, and point to for reason why they feel comfortable with their position... but that is not the same as the evidence leading to atheism. One has to provide that destination on one's own.
The God claim does include testable claims, they've been tested, and thus the God claim has been rejected because it's testable consequences lead to the opposite conclusion.
What on earth is the "god claim", what were its testable claims, and when were they tested?
science contradicts the existence of God. How could it not? Gosh, if it didn't, why would science be such a target for theists? Why would so many scientists be atheists?
Science is a target for very specific theists, because of some very specific claims made by those theists, which are undercut by evidence. All theists cannot be lumped into one group.
How many scientists are atheists? How many are theists? I assume someone that is an atheist would naturally gravitate toward science when looking for answers about the natural world. If there is a reason for greater numbers that might be the explanation. I have personally known too many theists who were scientists (and pretty good too) to buy into your assertion.
Nonsense, no more than anybody else who uses scientific evidence to disprove something. It's not philosophy, it's science.
Okay, you let me know where Dawkins provides scientific evidence that there are no gods. The question of whether there are gods is a metaphysical question... it is philosophy, or theology.
That one has not found any gods is something entirely different, than stating there are none.
By the way I recommend the Jonathon Miller series on Atheism I noted earlier in the thread. It is a history of atheism (or disbelief) and includes interviews with Dawkins and Dennett. He also has a series called the Atheist Tapes, which are the complete interviews he made for doing the series. For atheists, it really is a nice overview of disbelief's place in history. I suppose its much like an Old Testament for atheism... persecutions and survival across the ages.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2007 10:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 12:22 AM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 301 (441297)
12-17-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
12-17-2007 12:01 AM


Yeah, but its his nonscientific ones, not his scientific ones, right?
Most specifically I'm thinking of his arguments in The God Delusion. But The Selfish Gene gets misrepresented pretty bad, too. Like Andrea Dworkin I think Dawkins has actually said maybe less than half of the statements and arguments ascribed to him, particularly by his opponents.
Anyway we're pretty far off-topic. We should probably drop it.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 12:01 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 12-17-2007 12:40 AM crashfrog has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 50 of 301 (441299)
12-17-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 12:22 AM


Anyway we're pretty far off-topic. We should probably drop it.
Yeah. You're probably right.
Gotta say, tho.
A Dworkin ref.
That's hawt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 12:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 12:48 AM molbiogirl has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 301 (441300)
12-17-2007 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by molbiogirl
12-17-2007 12:40 AM


A Dworkin ref.
That's hawt.
Yeah, it's a real panty-peeler for my wife, that's for sure.
Or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 12-17-2007 12:40 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 52 of 301 (441323)
12-17-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
12-16-2007 6:05 PM


Atheism is based on science.
No it ain't Crashfrog.
What's more, making assertions like this isn't going to endear many fundamentalists to the bosom of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2007 6:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:22 AM Kitsune has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 301 (441326)
12-17-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:16 AM


No it ain't Crashfrog.
Well, except that it is. It's off-topic, though.
What's more, making assertions like this isn't going to endear many fundamentalists to the bosom of science.
I could care less. We're not going to endear them to us by obfuscating or outright fabricating the scientific consensus. Science contradicts their beliefs, that's really all there is to that. There's no way to soft-pedal the conflict of science and religion. It's there; it exists. Religion makes testable claims, and science shows those claims don't hold up to scrutiny.
Fundamentalists should be endeared to science the same way everybody else is - when they, personally, realize that they would prefer accurate truths supported by evidence over comforting lies. Nobody's served when someone exchanges one unexamined dogma for another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:16 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 54 of 301 (441327)
12-17-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by molbiogirl
12-16-2007 6:51 PM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
And to characterize Dr. Dawkins as evangelical (as our beloved woomeister Lindalou has) simply because he has chosen to publish a book on atheism (THE NERVE) ... well ... that's really a bit much.
If all he did was publish a book on atheism, I'd simply not read that book, and quite happily look at the rest of his work. And as I said, I have no criticism to make of him as a scientist.
The problem is that his atheism permeates everything he does. And I would define it as more than mere atheism. It is a kind of spiritual negativism, which you yourself so clearly expressed when you said,
Folks that feel bereft without some "transcendent" mystery in their lives need to adopt a stray cat or something.
This is a valid point of view of course, but it does not necessarily reflect the Ultimate Truth (TM). Not everyone sees science as being in conflict with spirituality, and not everyone sees spirituality as a worthless delusion. A few people might actually be a wee bit insulted by such an assertion.
Modulous posted a Dawkins video on a thread here a few months back. I wanted to gag after watching 5 minutes of it, though I'd approached the vid with an open mind, having heard people here singing his praises and not knowing much about him myself at the time. He takes all the negative connotations of world religions and then condemns them. Personally I don't see the issue as being one of whether or not there is a God, but whether there is more to life than what we experience with the 5 senses. I think humans are capable of much more than that, so why limit ourselves in such a way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 12-16-2007 6:51 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:49 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 12-17-2007 5:18 AM Kitsune has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 301 (441328)
12-17-2007 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:36 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
I think humans are capable of much more than that
With what organs?
Don't you think it's just a little bit incumbent on you to provide some evidence of human beings supposedly transcending physical reality, or whatever? And some explanation as to why those people who can claim to do so can never manage to do it in a controlled test environment?
A few people might actually be a wee bit insulted by such an assertion.
Oh, but say, the implication that people who don't believe in Big Sky Daddy can't sing a Christmas carol without being a hypocrite, that's not supposed to be insulting?
I'm sorry that you feel Dawkins is somehow attacking your spirituality by his very existence, or by the fact that he thinks it's ridiculous that religious craziness is privileged over other kinds of insanity. But compared to the thoughtlessness that atheists are regularly subjected to from theists, I lack sympathy. Every time a theists idly wonders aloud "huh, shouldn't all atheists be amoral serial killers?" it boggles my mind. Would anybody say such bigoted crap about black people or gay people, these days? It's like atheists are the last minority it's completely ok to shit all over. At least the racists have the sense to be ashamed of their racism, and try to hide it. But the religious don't even try to hide their contempt for people who don't share their delusion.
Sorry, that's a bit of a rant after I noted how off-topic this all is. Or maybe it's not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:36 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 4:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 56 of 301 (441329)
12-17-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:22 AM


I understand where you're coming from here, given what you've said about your background -- you were lied to for years, and that's inexcusable. And I agree, a world view built on a tissue of lies is nothing more than gullibility or willful blindness. But there are adherents to all world religions who do endear themselves to science. I would be careful of tossing them into the same bucket.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 57 of 301 (441330)
12-17-2007 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:49 AM


Re: Crash, in my heart ...
Just to make things clear, I'm not a theist. And when I was, I never had a problem with evolution. I don't think I ever honestly had a position on atheists; I guess I just felt that was their choice. I certainly wouldn't have been accusing them of being amoral. Probably the most vocal group about this are the ones you are quite rightly embittered against -- fundamentalists.
What bothers me is this very strong belief that any kind of spirituality is nonsense. I'm not talking about people who claim to have strange powers and for whatever reasons decide to subject themselves to scientific experiments designed by people like James Randi with an agenda (i.e. not getting at a truth objectively, but "debunking", which makes the predetermined assumption that it's woo-woo from the start). What about Buddhists, for example? Buddhism does not require belief in a god. It does not build its theology on top of lies about what science has discovered, and it does not oppose scientific progress. Some people feel it has a lot to teach about the human condition. What's the beef?
Maybe there is a more appropriate thread to take this discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:35 PM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 58 of 301 (441332)
12-17-2007 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
12-16-2007 9:42 PM


If you are talking about religious deep meaning, there is none as far as I am concern. If you are talking about other type of deep meaning, christmas is a holiday when I can be with all my nieces and nephews all at once, and I love kids. Heck, half of them I had changed their diapers before. The oldest one is halfway to being 18 already. Man, do they grow fast.
Thanks for that Taz. It sort of mellows all those angry avatars you've chosen. Ya softie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 12-16-2007 9:42 PM Taz has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 59 of 301 (441339)
12-17-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:36 AM


You sound like a Gary Larson cartoon
Lindalou Message 54 writes:
If ... blah blah blah ... spirituality ... blah blah blah ... ultimate truth ... blah blah blah ... insulted ... blah blah blah ... more to life ... blah blah blah ...
Is your latest post your idea of this?
Lindalou Message 57 The Right Way to Debunk writes:
This thread is called (insert thread name) which presumably means discussing strategies for debate. It is not a thread devoted to (insert atheism) conversation that I was having a few months ago. That is OT here and if any of you want to try to lure me into that somewhere else, it won't work. I came back here to get info for the debates I'm having with creationists.
Or this?
Lindalou Message 82 The Right Way to Debunk writes:
And to get back to the topic here ...
Or this?
Lindalou Message 104 The Right Way to Debunk writes:
I'll try to focus more on the topic here too.
Crash and I tried to gently close the atheism side bar earlier this morning.
You have chosen to ignore that.
Is "I am going to stick to the topic." going to become the latest Lindalou-ism? (In case you don't remember, your first Lindalou-ism was "I am leaving." "No, really, this time I mean it." "Seriously, I am going to leave." Ad nauseum.)
You're the little girl who cried wolf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:36 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 6:32 AM molbiogirl has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 301 (441341)
12-17-2007 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kitsune
12-15-2007 7:15 AM


Hi LindaLou,
Where I live there is a high proportion of Muslims, Hindus, and Siekhs.
Hey me too! I suppose it's because I live in Leicester as well.
I too feel a little queasy when asked to sing hymns, but if an atheist wants to do so, why is it hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for an atheist to gaze in wonderment at the ceiling of the sistene chapel? Christian culture permeates the arts to an extent that any attempt to disengage robs us of our culture. Many idioms in daily use are bible quotes and without an extensive bible study lesson, how would we atheists know which to avoid? Why would we want to?
I have many songs in my music collection that mention god or religion, and I see no reason why I should stop listening to Marvin Gaye (for instance) just because I find his ideas about Jesus unpalatable. I don't really see why joining in with the singing makes a difference. This kind of thinking plays into the attitude of many theists, that atheists are somehow impoverished by our beliefs, a notion I reject.
If you were to pick up a copy of "The God Delusion" (I'll lend you mine if you like) you would see that Dawkins does address this topic, in similar terms to those I've rehashed for you above, only more eloquently I fancy.
Personally, I love Christmas, and I'm always irritated when the true meaning of Christmas (presents, tinsel, over-eating, etc.) is spoilt by people dragging Jesus into it.
PS - The word "spirituality" is a bete noir of mine; I don't think that it really means anything. If you want to discuss this in another thread, I'd be delighted to join you.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kitsune, posted 12-15-2007 7:15 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 6:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024